Chandan Singh Nagarkoti vs Managing Director Uttarakhand ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 583 UK

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                  Writ Petition (S/S) No. 86 of 2021

Chandan Singh Nagarkoti                                   ...... Petitioner

                                   Vs.

Managing Director Uttarakhand Power
Corporatoin Ltd. and Others                             ..... Respondents


Ms. Sheetal Selwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for
respondent no.4.



                              JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.09.2020 passed by respondent no.2 (contained as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services on the poset of Sub Station Operator and pay him all emoluments as and when it became due.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the petition in favor of the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was deployed to work with Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (for short 'UPCL') by the Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam (for short 'UPNL'). Petitioner was posted at Electricy Sub Station Kathgodam. On

26.09.2020, an FIR was lodged with regard to some occurrence, in which, due to fall of electricity wire, a person died. It is the case of the petitioner that the department after inquiry found the petitioner negligent and without informing him terminated his services.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. According to the case of the petitioner himself, he had no employer and employee relationship with UPCL. He is a personnel whose services were taken by UPCL from a outsourcing agency. The outsourcing agency was UPNL. For the reasons stated in the impugned order dated 30.09.2020, the services of the petitioner were dispensed. If there was any relationship that too contractual, it was between UPCL and UPNL. The services of the petitioner were requisitioned by UPCL and provided by UPNL. Therefore, in the instant case, no right of the petitioner has been affected, as such, which may give any occasion to this Court to make any indulgence.

5. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the instant writ pettion and it deserves to be dismissed.

6. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.03.2021 Ujjwal